The child is not an astronaut
From the Times (the London one): another woman no-platformed by university students for wrongthink about gender.
Heather Brunskell-Evans, a research fellow at King’s College London, who is also a spokeswoman for the Women’s Equality Party, told The Times that she believed such institutions were running scared from public debate, out of fear of offending the transgender lobby.
She had been asked by medical students from the Reproductive and Sexual Health Society at King’s to give a talk this week on the subject of pornography and the sexualisation of young women, at the college’s Guy’s Campus in south London.
But days after appearing on the Moral Maze, the Radio 4 series hosted by Michael Buerk, she was told that the event had been cancelled because of concerns that her views on “transgender health . . . would violate the student union’s ‘Safe Space’ policy”.
What views? On Moral Maze, Brunskell-Evans and a psychotherapist and two trans activists talked about defining gender.
The academic had argued in favour of transgender adults defining themselves “in whichever way they want”, but she questioned the advice being promoted to schools and youth groups by transgender organisations that positive affirmation was the only correct way to support children who expressed confusion over their gender.
She said: “If a child decides that it’s an astronaut, one can play along with this. One doesn’t have to moralise about it but quite clearly the child is not an astronaut. In fact it’s incumbent upon adults who are responsible for the welfare, psychological and social and medical, of children not to go along with this story.” It is understood her comments prompted three complaints from transgender members of the Women’s Equality Party, accusing her of “promoting prejudice against the transgender community”.
There’s no such thing as “the transgender community.” There are transgender people, there is trans activism, but there’s no such thing as “the community,” any more than there’s “the feminist community” or “the immigrant community.” In this context the word is being used to bully, making it sound as if skeptical academics are invading a peaceful little village at the foot of the Alps.
But the WEP is investigating Brunskell-Evans, who is their spokeswoman on violence against women and girls.
Dr Brunskell-Evans said she feared “there’s something very dark going on. People who were male are now in the Women’s Equality Party dictating what the party spokeswoman should say on issues affecting women and girls. You could not write this.
“The cowardliness of institutional response is more than reprehensible. No one will speak out. Good people are standing back, doing nothing, as others get pilloried. Organisations and individuals are petrified to be seen as taking any other view than unequivocally endorsing transgender doctrine. It’s truly shocking.
“How has the trans lobby become so powerful that people, including those medical practitioners about to be qualified in the specific field of sexual and reproductive health, are unwilling to tolerate a talk from me on another topic?”
Twitter, mostly.
How has a trans lobby become so powerful on the left? Because it allows left-identifying men to shit on women and feel righteous about it.
Edit: It allows left-identifying women to shit on women and feel righteous, too. Everyone internalizes misogynistic ideas in a patriarchal culture.
Hi, I’ve read your blog with admiration for a goodly while. I don’t wholly disagree with your views on the transgender controversy. But I do not think comparing a child’s claim to being one sex trapped in the body of another to be remotely comparable to a child’s claim of being an astronaut. The former is a personal feeling. The latter a verifiable fact.
I’m gay myself, 62 years old, and I grew up in Britain and lived in the US for most of the years homosexuality was illegal or condemned. I can’t claim to know what goes on in the mind of a heterosexual, a woman, or a transgendered person. But to some extent, I can put myself in their shoes.
What they feel about their sexuality is in their heads, and we have to take it at face value. If they claim to be a rocket scientist, then we have a means of asking proof for their claim.
It seems that asking questions like “What does it mean to ‘be a woman’?” or “What does ‘being a woman’ feel like?” or “How do people know or learn what it feels like to ‘be a woman’?” is impermissible.
I thoroughly agree that refusing to listen to or bullying people is wrong. But have we reached the point (so quickly!) where we’re not even allowed to wonder what it all means?
Leszek – Hi and thanks for reading.
I was quoting Claire Fox; she’s the one who said the thing about a child claiming to be an astronaut. She wasn’t directly comparing that to being one sex trapped in the body of another; she was talking about the reasons not to take children’s claims about themselves as automatically correct. I agree with you that they’re not comparable in the sense of being exactly the same, but there are some relevant overlaps.
The thing is, claiming to be one sex trapped in the body of another isn’t just a personal feeling; it also rests on certain ideas, ideas that are questionable. It relies for instance on mind-body dualism, which is highly questionable.
But more than that: the issue isn’t really what people feel any more, it’s what the dogma orders us all to “believe” and say. The mantra, don’t forget, is “trans women are women” – which precisely does go beyond the notion of a personal feeling to a real-world fact that we all have to acknowledge.
Leszek #3
To expand on what Ophelia said, I often find it useful to spell out just exactly what we are talking about rather than assume we’re all talking about the same thing just because we’re using the same words. When gender-critical feminists (formerly known as “feminists”) use the word “women” they are talking about something like “people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers” (let’s call them “women₁”). The trans lobby on the other hand are talking about people who think or feel a certain way [1] about themselves (let’s call them “women₂”). Obviously women₂ are about as different from women₁ as flying mammals (let’s call them “bats₁”) are from clubs for hitting baseballs (let’s call them “bats₂”). And yet trans activists insist on acting as if we were all talking about the same thing and try to have it both ways…
…by demanding that feminists who oppose the discrimination faced by women₁ based specifically on physical traits change their cause entirely and turn all their focus toward the discrimination of women₂ [2].
…by demanding that women₂ be allowed to compete in sporting events that are reserved for women₁ specifically to compensate for biological differences.
…by demanding that straight men₁ and lesbian women₁ who are attracted to women₁ based specifically on physical traits consider women₂ as potential partners.
…by demanding that women₂ be allowed to use restrooms that are reserved for women₁ specifically because of physical/biological differences.
…Etc… etc…
There is a reason why trans women₂ are so obsessed with being called the same as the people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers: Because they want everyone to accept that they are the same. However, since they don’t in fact have innate physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers, they have to argue that something else makes them the same as women₁, or – more precisely – that something else makes women₁ the same as them, hence the strong insistence on “female” ways of thinking/feeling that women₁ supposedly share with them, thus making them the same kind of people. Seen from such a point of view this is not simply about whether or not trans women₂ should be free to define who they are, but whether or not trans people should be free to define who women₁ are as well. As I keep saying, these implicit claims about what’s going on inside other people’s heads are precisely the part that I for one have the greatest problem with.
Also, since it’s impermissible (because exclusionary [3] to trans women) to ever talk of women₁ as an oppressed group in its own right with its own specific issues that are not entirely reducible to those faced by women₂, the trans lobby’s ultimatum to women₁ everywhere boils down to: “Allow the discrimination you face to go forever unaddressed, or have your name dragged through the dirt all over the internet”. If that’s not a hostile ultimatum, then nothing is.
_________________________
1. I’d like to be more specific than “a certain way”, but unfortunately I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Apparently it has nothing to with the old sexist gender roles and cultural stereotypes, but we’re never told what it does have something to do with.
2. Someone once accused of strawmanning for making this very point. Apparently no one has suggested that feminists stop fighting for abortion rights etc. My response was to challenge him to specify why abortion rights (or anything else pertaining to the equality of women₁) is specifically a feminist cause without saying the same kind of things that got Ophelia and pretty much every other feminist I admire labeled as TERFs and demonized. “Pregnant people”, anybody? Obviously, I never got an answer.
3. Never mind that their definition of “woman” by necessity excludes anyone who fails to think or feel the required way about themselves. But hey, when has it ever been wrong for entitled, loud, aggressive people with dicks to tell women₁ their place in life?
‘Apparently it has nothing to with the old sexist gender roles and cultural stereotypes, but we’re never told what it does have something to do with.’ I wish I knew the answer to that too. I was recently on a panel (on a subject completely unrelated to gender) with a transwoman who asked for the mike since she spoke so softly, presumably because this is how she perceives women to speak and therefore how she is required to speak since she is a woman.
It’s interesting to me that Ophelia mentioned the idea of ‘community’ here, as I was just thinking about this on my way to work. The ‘communities’ I write about consist of all kinds of people–the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the sweet young couple with their new baby and the mean old fart who lives at the end of the street. These are ‘communities of necessity’–you don’t choose who you’re stuck dealing with and depending on, but on the other hand you have access to a wide variety of skills, talents, kinds of experience, abilities, worldviews and perspectives, as well as the combined assets of the group. (I know someone’s written something about this–thought it was Richard Sennett but I’m not turning anything up.) Now the word ‘community’ seems to imply not only that the members have something in common, but that they have basically everything in common, and those who don’t match up to the community template don’t belong in it. Conversely, if you do have something in common with them you’re assumed to be in ‘the community’, which takes on the characteristics of a karass. I don’t know, as I said I only started thinking about these two definitions, and purposes, of community this morning so I’m free-associating a little, in hopes that anyone reading this might share their thoughts, or point me to others’ that are salient.
All this weight given to: ‘a child’s claim to being one sex trapped in the body…’ skips the little problem of how often this actually happens. Children are not fully indoctrinated into the sex roles their parents and teachers are.
If Jimmy picks up a doll, or Sally plays with carpenter’s tools, are THEY proclaiming gender dysphoria? Or is that being pressed upon them by adults. Remember how the deranged ‘Satanic Panic’ promoters always declared that we must ‘believe the children?’ Only to be exposed for browbeating those same children into ever more absurd claims. Some portion of the trans-lobby is seeking to enforce a gender essentialism that would make Freud or Phyllis Schlaffly cringe.
Yes, it’s a giant step backward. If a (presumed) boy picks up a doll and people rush in saying, “Aha! Girl!” haven’t we reverted to a smaller world, wherein everyone is free to choose which of two tiny boxes they will live in? (Or free to have other people choose which of two tiny boxes they will live in?)
[…] a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on The child is not an […]
Ben, it’s been explained to me that we have it all backward, that we’re reversing cause and effect. We don’t presume the boy is a girl because he picks up a doll; rather, the presumed boy is attempting to express his innate girlness the only way she knows how, by claiming and being attracted to girl-coded things. (Don’t ask me to make this make sense. We’re still back to the ‘on what basis does the presumed boy recognise his innate girlness in the first place?’)
So what happens when the presumed boy picks up a doll, is determined by that to be a girl, then picks a girl’s name, etc, and begins living as a girl – then picks up a truck?
Who the fuck knows.
I kind of wish I could post one of my favourite pics of me as a girl–wearing pigtails and a cowboy hat, playing with a train set, with a rocket toy and a doll nearby.
When he was four, my youngest grandson had a three-four months stage when he insisted he was Sonic the HedgdinnerHe was good at it, too; refused to answer to his (assigned at birth!) name, always had a good explanation of where the boy whose place he’d taken was at any given time, and so on. Was my daughter and son-in-law supposed to give him worms and grubs for dinner and settle him down to hibernate in the winter?
This damned autospell thing!!! ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’, for God’s sake! Hedgdinner? WTabsoluteF?
Well now I won’t bother to fix it, because that’s too funny.
Ophelia and Bjarte
Thank you for your replies. I didn’t think I’d get any.
I fully appreciate the point about dogma demanding we believe this rather than that. I’m no dogmatist. I’ll tell you a wee story. When I lived in Georgia for a while, I had a good friend who was a woman who had some bad experiences with men. She was ok to be with gay men like me, who were no threat, but she drew the line at men who transitioned to women. And while I didn’t agree with the generalisation, I could understand where she was coming from, the idea that men are men, and they don’t change. I think her point of view was perfectly understandable, if perhaps broader than it needed to be.
What concerns me is that the broad view is that no man who transitions from male to female – forgive me, I’m not familiar with the jargon – can be trusted. I can understand where the distrust is coming from. But for those who genuinely need to transition, it’s a barrier to acceptance.
Back to some of the dogmatic issues. I absolutely agree with the argument that trans women, or gay or straight men for that matter, don’t get to define what women are. I agree that these various classes are separate to a realistic degree and shouldn’t smeared into one gigantic gemisch. The experiences of women, trans women, men and gay men, are demonstrably different, and should each be accepted on their own terms. Same goes for women transitioning to males, and it may be significant that this doesn’t cause as much of a kerfuffle.
So I fear the dogmatic fights are hurting everyone and clouding the real issue that we should have the freedom and support to come to terms with our sexuality in a way that seems reasonable to us, without being piled on for being incorrect. While I think that transgender activists have been being unreasonable lately, in alleging that their chosen opponents do not argue in good faith, I worry that tit for tat just exacerbates the problem. I haven’t good answers, but I am grateful for the discussion.
My hope for the outcome is that the fashion will shift and everyone will see that all this bullying and demanding agreement with absurd “beliefs” is bad and stupid, and peace will fall on the landscape like gentle rain.
It really is. I don’t see why that couldn’t or shouldn’t happen, so maybe it will.
AoS, when my son was 3, he decided he was an elephant. He had two invisible baboon friends (at least I think there were 2; that’s how many chairs he insisted on having at the table). I could live with invisible baboons until he outgrew them, but I was not feeding him a diet of nothing but peanuts. So we compromised – he got seats for his baboons, and he ate people food.
My son happily played at shops, dolls, and cooking for most of his toddlerhood. He had parents (and grandparents) who thought that kids should play what they wanted and that it was utterly irrelevant to their future behaviour, to the point that when we discussed his early behaviour with a mental health profession (see later) we were actually surprised she commented that she thought his play activities at that age were quite feminine.
(He did also have a train set which my daughter also played with. She also liked swords and guns, though at least part of that was that she realised at a very young age she wasn’t supposed to be playing with them and she had – and has – the type of personality where being told she can’t do something makes it instantly more attractive.)
A key thing here is that my son has high functioning Aspergers (diagnosed at 21) . Growing up, he has had almost no social interest in people at all. Add to that I had no friends with small children while he was growing up and he had no peer group telling him his interests and enjoyments were wrong. I think that is very significant.
There are no greater policers of gender than small children. And where do they get their ideas from..?
iknklast, I love the imagination of children. My daughter says that she’s never got him to bed as easily as during the time he was Sonic. She bought a load of cheap, golden-coloured bangles, and at bedtime she’d simply lay a trail up the stairs to his bed, and finish off with a coloured plastic ‘jewel’ on his pillow.
Then one day he got up and informed her that he wasn’t Sonic anymore, he was going to be himself again.